robin has been a bit quiet lately. (s)he didn't get banned did (s)he? I seem to recall Mike saying that he wouldn't do that.

Mike Gene dislocates his spine trying to rationalize the banning:

Quote

No, this is what I wrote on June 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 pm:

Quote

BTW robin, I think it is rather obvious you are keiths. And pay attention to this – even though I think this, I don’t advocate that you be banned.

Note the present tense.

At the time, I did not know he was keiths; I just believed it to be the case. And I did not say I wouldn’t ban keiths; I said that I did not advocate banning him at the time that I wrote that. And I clearly said “Pay attention to this.” In other words, keiths was being given a second chance. He was being allowed to post when he knew that we thought he was who he was. How would he react to this act of courtesy?

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

If so, perhaps now is a good time to go on record with your feelings about Sal's methods. Do you approve of his quote-mining and absurd ad hominems? What about his debate tactics? Do you think his behavior is an asset or a liability to the ID movement?

I'm also especially interested in hearing from people who think highly of Salvador and his efforts.

And then he posts this:

Quote

If someone opposes the banning because you either approve of what he was trying to do in that thread or you think we are somehow obligated to tolerate such behavior, now is the time to go on record and say so in this open thread.

You sort of have to admire his self-blindness; it saves him from what would otherwise be intolerable amounts of cognitive dissonance.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Two and a half years ago, a Telic Thoughts contributor named "bipod" had this advice for his fellow ID proponents:

Quote

Just Do It: 9 Pieces of Advice for the Next 3 Years

by bipod

This message is aimed at that minority of individuals who 1) acknowledge that Intelligent Design (ID) is immature as a scientific research program, 2) recognize that the current generation of intelligent design theorists have laid a unique foundation for exploring the biotic world, and 3) want to be participants (and possible failures) in the development of a telic science.

The next 3 years should prove to be pivotal for any prospective intelligent design research program. It really is time (er, has been time) to stop arguing about the scientific status of ID and to let history play itself out by conducting research and doing the hard work.

Just do it, as they say.

Here's some primitive guiding advice for the small minority.

1. Start small and be meticulous2. Don't aim for "smoking-gun" results3. Don't be afraid to make mistakes; take chances - speculate and imagine4. Don't extrapolate wildly from the data and don't look for grandiose results5. Explore the world with unfettered curiosity6. Don't force the data into your model.7. Ignore the buzzbots and cherish the true skeptics.8. Resist the temptation to spectate.9. Don't hold your breath for Mike Gene to publish a book;-)

This entry was posted on Friday, December 23rd, 2005 at 10:59 am and is filed under Intelligent Design.

How's that project coming along, bipod?

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Joy is a veritable fountain of what I call 'blowtard'. Designed to impress the rubes as deep erudition, it elicits hysterical laughter from people who actually understand the subjects that Joy pretends to discuss.

Yeah, used to 'play' it all the time with my toddlers and their plastic rainbow donut towers (which is what I call it, since I'm married to a Viet-era vet). Recursion. Which of course plays a role in deep time adaptation, but not so much in things like punk-eek. Sans directed mutation, that is, and while channeling also plays its role, there's not enough time there (apparently) for straight randomness.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

When I was working with Matti Pitkanen on an attempt to quantify an anomalous issue under his TGD model of consciousness, I was introduced to a whole "new math" that this subject probably deserves - much as gravity deserved calculus back when Leibniz and Newton were arguing the details. Needless to say, I wasn't very "up" on the technicalities, so tried to frame what I was being exposed to in terms my ancient QM training would allow.

It turned out to be slightly easier than grokking multiverses, but not by much. Matti's only got 8 dimensions to work with, which I think is probably better than 11, 22 or infinite [FWIW]. Penrose is still working in a 4-D manifold, which is a good place to start, though he does give some lip service per Nigel Cook in his latest tome to Matti's p-adic primes as a mathematical framework the world's just not ready for yet.

I had stubbornly insisted on equating Matti's multi-stage vector alignment for the extremal of consciousness as akin to the vector of a magnetic monopole. It was the only theoretically existent particle I knew of that would take more than one phase transition to align to 'reality', so my mind kept focusing on its hedgehog extremal vector. Recently Matti has indeed integrated magnetic field dynamics into his 20+-year project, and it's starting to almost make sense! Check his blog for incoming details.

JohnJoe McFadden had a pretty good EM field ubertheory for consciousness that would be deducible from both Penrose's dynamic and Matti's. Since neuronal biophysics does operate on electrical circuitry, and biophotons must of course generate an EM field that extends not only throughout the brain itself, but also extending exterior like an 'aura' around the biophysical body.

True, the world isn't ready for multi-sheeted 8-dimensional spacetimes, hierarchial 'selves' or even magnetic monopoles. Penrose, at the late end of a long and storied career, can risk censure because nobody would dare censure him. He's plowing the road, and some of Matti's students may just plant some seeds. For the subject of life and biological evolution, it's the PCCs and NCCs that count. And these are well on the way to quantification.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

It has come to my attention that Mike Gene and Bradford have recently been engaging in historical revisionism with respect to their dishonest behavior surrounding the banning of myself and keiths. In a despicable and shameless comment, Bradford has even tried to reverse the tables on the situation (I shall refrain from linking to it).

In light of this, I have decided to publish the full, unedited correspondence between Guts and myself. If you have the patience to read it, you will walk away with only one conclusion: he is a sleazeball.

Incidentally, anon9 is me. I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things. I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it. I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site. I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog. Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.

In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman. anon9 said that Nelson Alonso was unethical, not Guts. My posts here do not mention Nelson. Only Frostman would know that Nelson Alonso is Guts, as revealed in the following correspondence where he changes his name in mid-stream.

Remember, at the beginning of this correspondence neither of us knew what the problem really was. Normally I would remove the unnecessary quoting and other cruft, but I cannot risk any appearance that I have made editions. The following is pristine and unedited. Due to the 76800 character limit, I have split it into four parts (two should have sufficed, but the site was still dropping text).

Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you hadat least a tiny bit more sense than your friendKeiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You continuedto ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (youwould ignore posts that refuted your assertions inother threads as well, such as the Fodor one), andcontinued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when weasked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like a 4year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the choir,sorry for not being impressed.

By the way , your banishment is only temporary, it wasnot approved by the majority of TTers, if you agreefrom now on to respect the decisions of the variousblog authors, I might be able to get you back in.

I found the panda's thumb section of antievolution.org after I was bannedwhile googling for TT members, as I couldn't find their email addresses.The only reason I posted there was to have a record of the event to which Icould link. You'll see that I registered there just before posting --- I'venever been one to hang around with those who agree with me, and it's not mychoir :)

To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have already anticipated thatobjection here

As you know, the issue is not that my posts were deleted --- as completelyunwarranted as that is --- but that they were not moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy.

As to the reasons for the deletions, unfortunately you are unable to judgemy position and my arguments, as my posts were deleted. You only have arecord of Bradford's point of view; my side is gone. Do you believeBradford's behavior is ethical? And does his disregard for the deletionpolicy hold any relevance to you?

Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at TT than non-ID members. Irespond to as much as I can, and when that is not enough, I'll inevitablyhear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring posts which "refute" mine.

Please forward to me any and all posts which, in your view, refute any of myarguments. I regret that you have been left with this impression. Howeveryou must cite the specific posts in question, otherwise your claims areempty.

There is one case where I intentionally held off my responses. In the "eyeshave it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a logical mistake in reasoningwhich he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer after eight times asking.Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints to his arguments whilefocusing on the tangential issues surrounding those counterpoints. I wasdetermined not to let that happen again, so I held off my responses.

Imagine my position: if I respond to some side issue brought up by someoneelse, Bradford will seize the opportunity to talk about that. Bradfordescapes from the checkmate, being able to run away in the confusion ofirrelevant arguments. In fact I attempted to explain this in that thread.

I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is notthat my posts were deleted --- as completelyunwarranted as that is but that they were not moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I alreadyexplained to you what was happening with the deletions(again this is what I'm talking about with you). Itold people to save comments because the memory holewasn't working, I double as technical support for TT,I know everything that was ever posted.

Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones ,join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the onlyreason why you were temporarily banned was because youwere acting like a baby.

So again, if you agree to respect blog entry author'sdecisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what isyour response to this offer? If you ignore it again, Ican only conclude that you are truly just trying totrump up disingenuosly some martydom card.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I found the panda's thumb section of> > antievolution.org after I was banned> > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't find> > their email addresses.> > The only reason I posted there was to have a record> > of the event to which I> > could link. You'll see that I registered there just> > before posting --- I've> > never been one to hang around with those who agree> > with me, and it's not my> > choir :) > > > > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have> > already anticipated that> > objection here> > > >http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556> > > > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were> > deleted --- as completely> > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were not> > moved to the memory hole,> > contrary to TT policy.> > > > As to the reasons for the deletions, unfortunately> > you are unable to judge> > my position and my arguments, as my posts were> > deleted. You only have a> > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is gone.> > Do you believe> > Bradford's behavior is ethical? And does his> > disregard for the deletion> > policy hold any relevance to you?> > > > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at TT> > than non-ID members. I> > respond to as much as I can, and when that is not> > enough, I'll inevitably> > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring> > posts which "refute" mine.> > > > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in> > your view, refute any of my> > arguments. I regret that you have been left with> > this impression. However> > you must cite the specific posts in question,> > otherwise your claims are> > empty.> > > > There is one case where I intentionally held off my> > responses. In the "eyes> > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a logical> > mistake in reasoning> > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer after> > eight times asking.> > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints to> > his arguments while> > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding those> > counterpoints. I was> > determined not to let that happen again, so I held> > off my responses.> > > > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side issue> > brought up by someone> > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to talk> > about that. Bradford> > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run away> > in the confusion of> > irrelevant arguments. In fact I attempted to> > explain this in that thread.> > > > Kind Regards,> > Frostman> > > > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:> > >> > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you> > had>> > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend>> > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You> > continued>> > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you>> > > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in>> > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and>> > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when> > we>> > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like> > a 4>> > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the> > choir,>> > > sorry for not being impressed.>> > >>> > >>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:>> > >>>> > > > Hello,>>> > > >>>> > > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those> > few>>> > > > Telic Thoughts>>> > > > members who list their email address. It's been>>> > > > fun.>>> > > >>>> > > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have>>> > > > detailed my recent>>> > > > banning from TT here:>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > >>> > >> >http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518>>> > > >>>> > > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the> > TT>>> > > > thread in question:>>> > > >>>> > > > http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/>>> > > >>>> > > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,>>> > > > Frostman>>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> >

Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

I don't even understand what you are saying now. Please bear with me.Previously you said,

"You continued to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you wouldignore posts that refuted your assertions in other threads as well, such asthe Fodor one)"

So the reason my posts were deleted was because, in your opinion, I ignoredposts which refuted my assertions? This doesn't even make sense. When didI do that? And when has such an opinion been sufficient grounds fordeletion?

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. Are you saying the memory holeworks for you, but not for Bradford?

I promise that I am acting in good faith. There is obviously something I'mnot understanding about the situation.

"So again, if you agree to respect blog entry author'sdecisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what isyour response to this offer?"

I don't even understand the offer. Do you agree with Bradford's decision tojettison the Telic Thoughts deletion policy? Does TT have a deletionpolicy, or not? I am not ignoring your offer --- I am just trying tounderstand it.

Frostman

On Nov 27, 2007 2:10 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is not> > that my posts were deleted --- as completely> > unwarranted as that is but that they were not> > moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."> > you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I already> > explained to you what was happening with the deletions> > (again this is what I'm talking about with you). I> > told people to save comments because the memory hole> > wasn't working, I double as technical support for TT,> > I know everything that was ever posted.> >> > Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones ,> > join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only> > reason why you were temporarily banned was because you> > were acting like a baby.> >> > So again, if you agree to respect blog entry author's> > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what is> > your response to this offer? If you ignore it again, I> > can only conclude that you are truly just trying to> > trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.> >> >> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> > > I found the panda's thumb section of>> > > antievolution.org after I was banned>> > > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't find>> > > their email addresses.>> > > The only reason I posted there was to have a record>> > > of the event to which I>> > > could link. You'll see that I registered there just>> > > before posting --- I've>> > > never been one to hang around with those who agree>> > > with me, and it's not my>> > > choir :) >> > >>> > > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have>> > > already anticipated that>> > > objection here>> > >>> > >> >> > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556>> > >>> > > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were>> > > deleted --- as completely>> > > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were not>> > > moved to the memory hole,>> > > contrary to TT policy.>> > >>> > > As to the reasons for the deletions, unfortunately>> > > you are unable to judge>> > > my position and my arguments, as my posts were>> > > deleted. You only have a>> > > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is gone.>> > > Do you believe>> > > Bradford's behavior is ethical? And does his>> > > disregard for the deletion>> > > policy hold any relevance to you?>> > >>> > > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at TT>> > > than non-ID members. I>> > > respond to as much as I can, and when that is not>> > > enough, I'll inevitably>> > > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring>> > > posts which "refute" mine.>> > >>> > > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in>> > > your view, refute any of my>> > > arguments. I regret that you have been left with>> > > this impression. However>> > > you must cite the specific posts in question,>> > > otherwise your claims are>> > > empty.>> > >>> > > There is one case where I intentionally held off my>> > > responses. In the "eyes>> > > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a logical>> > > mistake in reasoning>> > > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer after>> > > eight times asking.>> > > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints to>> > > his arguments while>> > > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding those>> > > counterpoints. I was>> > > determined not to let that happen again, so I held>> > > off my responses.>> > >>> > > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side issue>> > > brought up by someone>> > > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to talk>> > > about that. Bradford>> > > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run away>> > > in the confusion of>> > > irrelevant arguments. In fact I attempted to>> > > explain this in that thread.>> > >>> > > Kind Regards,>> > > Frostman>> > >>> > > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:>> > >>>> > > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you>> > > had>>> > > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend>>> > > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You>> > > continued>>> > > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you>>> > > > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in>>> > > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and>>> > > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when>> > > we>>> > > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like>> > > a 4>>> > > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the>> > > choir,>>> > > > sorry for not being impressed.>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:>>> > > >>>>> > > > > Hello,>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those>> > > few>>>> > > > > Telic Thoughts>>>> > > > > members who list their email address. It's been>>>> > > > > fun.>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have>>>> > > > > detailed my recent>>>> > > > > banning from TT here:>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > >> >> > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the>> > > TT>>>> > > > > thread in question:>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,>>>> > > > > Frostman>>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> > Be a better pen pal.> > Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.> > http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/> >

- There was NO jettison of any policy, the websiterecently moved servers, which broke the Memory Holefunction, it didn't work for anyone. I instructedeveryone to delete offending comments and save themfor manual insertion of the memory hole.

- This completely refutes any assertion that yourposts were deleted due to unethical behavior or tocircumvent TT policy.

- You were banned because despite constant and patientrequests for you to stop, you continued like a spoiledbrat.

You say you don't understand my offer but then you askcompletely irrelevant questions. Note, I will make anote of this publically if you once again ignore myoffer.

Actually, I can understand how one would misunderstandthe first point, which is one of the reasons I'mgiving you this opportunity to come back (withstipulations), it's not like you understand howinternal functions work, and we should have announcedthis when it actually broke. So nix my last statement.

OK we may be getting closer to understanding each other. Again I pledgethat I am acting in good faith, and I will assume you are doing likewise.

This was the series of observations which upon which I drew my conclusions:

- A post of mine is deleted without a trace.- Bradford says he deleted it.- You say the memory hole wasn't working, but it's working now.- I see two posts by you which say "test" and "test2" in them memory hole.This is evidence that the memory hole is working, as your tests presumablyconfirmed it to for you.- Afterward, several of my posts which defend my position on the Daviesquote and defend my position on "non-theism" vs "anti-theism" disappear,without going to the memory hole.- I ask if the memory hole is really working.- Bradford responds, "Frostman, you're wrong. The memory hole works fine.:grin:"- I notice the last post in which I so asked is moved to the memory hole.This demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the memory hole isworking.- Again I defend my position on the Davies quote; I defend my position onthe theism thing. That is an entirely rational, on-topic post.- That post is deleted, without going to the memory hole.- I inquire again about these deletions. Those inquiries are deleted.- Keith posts the deletion policy at TT. That is deleted.- Every post thereafter which either (1) defends my position, or (2)questions these deletions in light of the policy, is deleted without beingmoved to the memory hole.- The thread continues to hold only Bradford's harsh claims against me, withall of my responses to those claims deleted.

Actually, I thought you were playing dumb, which iswhy my last few e-mails were rather aggressive, forwhich I apologize deeply. I completely see how you areconfused and feel like you have been done aninjustice, for which again I apologize. But I canassure you that everything that happened was a hugemisunderstanding. Let me see if I can make the seriesof events clear to you, by quoting each of yourpoints:

- A post of mine is deleted without a trace.- Bradford says he deleted it.

This is when the Memory Hole was not working, hedeleted because he was following my instructions, Itold all the bloggers to save a copy of any offendingcomments and send them to me. In hindsight, this wasbad advice because of the impression it gave.

- Afterward, several of my posts which defend positionon the Davies quote and defend my position on"non-theism" vs "anti-theism" disappear, without goingto the memory hole.

This was all me. I deleted them, as I said in thethread, because I was reacting to what I saw as anattempted circumvention of Bradford's initial decision(I called it whining), that is, Bradford only deleted1 of your posts, per my instruction, I deleted therest because I perceived the situation as a hostilereaction to Bradford's initial decision, for which Iapologize to you. This goes for the rest of thedeletions as well, all the rest of the deletions weremy doing because of what I perceived as a hostileattack on Bradford, an attempt to circumvent hisdecision. Really you just felt that your posts wereunjustly deleted out of existence, I would get mad atthat as well.

Let me give you an idea of my thinking here. Ourpolicy is to move a comment to the memory hole, butyou can understand the frustration if someone takesthat comment, and reposts it *again* in the thread.This is what I perceived as happening. However you hadno way of knowing that the memory hole was notworking, and my instructions to the crew, so I see nowthat this was all just a really bad misunderstanding,and it's completely my fault. I usually delete postsas a deterent, if you attempt to circumvent thedecision of the blogger, you will see that you havewasted your time, kind of deal, I hope you canunderstand.

So like I said, you were not banned as a result of avote, which is usually how TT decides to ban people.So I have no problem with you comming back. You alsounderstand though, that if a blogger asks you to stopcommenting in their thread, you should respect that.If you see a comment of yours moved to the memoryhole, don't try to re-summarize it in an attempt torestore it to the thread. I'm sure you aware of allthis I'm just letting you know so that this wholeschmiel doesn't happen again.

I will be more careful in the future with that deletebutton. So, if we understand eachother now, I'll bemore than happy to lift your ban.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > OK we may be getting closer to understanding each> > other. Again I pledge> > that I am acting in good faith, and I will assume> > you are doing likewise.> > > > This was the series of observations which upon which> > I drew my conclusions:> > > > - A post of mine is deleted without a trace.> > - Bradford says he deleted it.> > - You say the memory hole wasn't working, but it's> > working now.> > - I see two posts by you which say "test" and> > "test2" in them memory hole.> > This is evidence that the memory hole is working, as> > your tests presumably> > confirmed it to for you.> > - Afterward, several of my posts which defend my> > position on the Davies> > quote and defend my position on "non-theism" vs> > "anti-theism" disappear,> > without going to the memory hole.> > - I ask if the memory hole is really working.> > - Bradford responds, "Frostman, you're wrong. The> > memory hole works fine.> > :grin:"> > - I notice the last post in which I so asked is> > moved to the memory hole.> > This demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that> > the memory hole is> > working.> > - Again I defend my position on the Davies quote; I> > defend my position on> > the theism thing. That is an entirely rational,> > on-topic post.> > - That post is deleted, without going to the memory> > hole.> > - I inquire again about these deletions. Those> > inquiries are deleted.> > - Keith posts the deletion policy at TT. That is> > deleted.> > - Every post thereafter which either (1) defends my> > position, or (2)> > questions these deletions in light of the policy, is> > deleted without being> > moved to the memory hole.> > - The thread continues to hold only Bradford's harsh> > claims against me, with> > all of my responses to those claims deleted.> > > > In your penultimate (I love that word) email to me,> > it appeared that you> > were asking me the respect Bradford's decision to> > delete posts permanently,> > without moving them the memory hole. Surely you> > weren't really asking that,> > I thought. Hence my last email mentioned the phrase> > "don't understand" like> > ten times.> > > > Actually I still don't understand. What *is* the> > decision I am asked to> > respect? I promise I am not playing dumb. I am> > just dumbfounded.> >

I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all know how easilymisunderstandings can happen on the Internet. Normally at this point Iwould try to be conciliatory in return, and we would both have a laugh atthe confluence of coincidences which brought about the misunderstanding.

But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't been made on TTexplaining the situation. You continue to stand mute in the face of all thederogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took place in the aftermath ofour ban.

I feel that this is justified given your false chargeof out of context quotation, which you have not yetapologized for.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all know> > how easily> > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet. > > Normally at this point I> > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we would> > both have a laugh at> > the confluence of coincidences which brought about> > the misunderstanding.> > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't> > been made on TT> > explaining the situation. You continue to stand> > mute in the face of all the> > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took> > place in the aftermath of> > our ban.> >

I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so quickly. When Ipledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I would assume you werealso, it appeared that we at last discovered the misunderstanding at root inthese events.

Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly viewed as a pariah again, forsome reason I do not know. I am no longer acting in good faith, youassume. There is little I can do once that assumption is made, however Iwill do my part in explaining the Davies quote.

On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that the Davies quote wasclearly taken out of context. Non-theists and "anti-theists" alike wouldagree with Davies on the preceding sentences you clipped. There is nothing"most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is true..."

The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the final three-sentenceparagraph of his editorial?

In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides both are wrong, and sayssomething entirely antithetical in the third sentence. He forgets to deletethe first two sentences on his word processor, a mistake which goesunnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New York Times.

In the second scenario, he writes the three disparate sentencesintentionally with a common goal in mind. The final paragraph as a whole ismeant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is destroyed when just thefinal sentence is taken without the preceding two.

Now, which scenario is more likely? Paul Davies is certainly no theist.What are the chances that he meant his final paragraph to be used in the wayBradford uses it? Effectively zero.

Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I still can't fathom how),that is not exactly relevant here. I have outlined an entirely reasonableand rational position, and I expect all or most non-ID folks would agreewith me. Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational discussion were people arefree to disagree, or not?

Your last email concerns me on so many levels. You have done several thingswhich were outright wrong, and you have apologized for them (thank you).Among them, you violated TT deletion policy. My posts were not saved, andthey were not added to the memory hole. Those posts outlined my position onthe Davies quote, summarized above. By deleting those posts permanently,you denied me the chance to defend myself against Bradford's accusations.

And now I am required to defend my position again. Actually you did not askfor my defense --- you asked me to renounce my position! Moreover, myrenouncement is being held as a precondition for *you* to admit the mistakes*you* made!

I am astonished.

On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I feel that this is justified given your false charge> > of out of context quotation, which you have not yet> > apologized for.> >> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all know>> > > how easily>> > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.>> > > Normally at this point I>> > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we would>> > > both have a laugh at>> > > the confluence of coincidences which brought about>> > > the misunderstanding.>> > >>> > > But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't>> > > been made on TT>> > > explaining the situation. You continue to stand>> > > mute in the face of all the>> > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took>> > > place in the aftermath of>> > > our ban.>> > >> >

This is just more misunderstanding, but in a debate,you should always offer your opponent the benefit ofthe doubt. He disagreed with you that including thepreceding sentences you accused him of purposelyleaving out changed the meaning of his post much, ifat all.

But anyway, the details here don't matter. Accusinghim of taking the quote out of context wasinappropriate. He just disagrees with you.

Actually this was part of my stipulation all along, Ijust didn't mention it because you had not agreed yetto have your banishment lifted, that you apologize toBradford before returning.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so> > quickly. When I> > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I> > would assume you were> > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the> > misunderstanding at root in> > these events.> > > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly> > viewed as a pariah again, for> > some reason I do not know. I am no longer acting in> > good faith, you> > assume. There is little I can do once that> > assumption is made, however I> > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.> > > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that> > the Davies quote was> > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and> > "anti-theists" alike would> > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you> > clipped. There is nothing> > "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is> > true..."> > > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the> > final three-sentence> > paragraph of his editorial?> > > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides> > both are wrong, and says> > something entirely antithetical in the third> > sentence. He forgets to delete> > the first two sentences on his word processor, a> > mistake which goes> > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New> > York Times.> > > > In the second scenario, he writes the three> > disparate sentences> > intentionally with a common goal in mind. The final> > paragraph as a whole is> > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is> > destroyed when just the> > final sentence is taken without the preceding two.> > > > Now, which scenario is more likely? Paul Davies is> > certainly no theist.> > What are the chances that he meant his final> > paragraph to be used in the way> > Bradford uses it? Effectively zero.> > > > Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I> > still can't fathom how),> > that is not exactly relevant here. I have outlined> > an entirely reasonable> > and rational position, and I expect all or most> > non-ID folks would agree> > with me. Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational> > discussion were people are> > free to disagree, or not?> > > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels. You> > have done several things> > which were outright wrong, and you have apologized> > for them (thank you).> > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy. My> > posts were not saved, and> > they were not added to the memory hole. Those posts> > outlined my position on> > the Davies quote, summarized above. By deleting> > those posts permanently,> > you denied me the chance to defend myself against> > Bradford's accusations.> > > > And now I am required to defend my position again. > > Actually you did not ask> > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my> > position! Moreover, my> > renouncement is being held as a precondition for> > *you* to admit the mistakes> > *you* made!> > > > I am astonished.> > > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:> > >> > > I feel that this is justified given your false> > charge>> > > of out of context quotation, which you have not> > yet>> > > apologized for.>> > >>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:>> > >>>> > > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all> > know>>> > > > how easily>>> > > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.>>> > > > Normally at this point I>>> > > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we> > would>>> > > > both have a laugh at>>> > > > the confluence of coincidences which brought> > about>>> > > > the misunderstanding.>>> > > >>>> > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement> > hasn't>>> > > > been made on TT>>> > > > explaining the situation. You continue to stand>>> > > > mute in the face of all the>>> > > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took>>> > > > place in the aftermath of>>> > > > our ban.>>> > > >>> > >> >

I am going to be very busy for the rest of the day,but I'll have a chance to post your apology later thisevening, you can just send it to me whenever yourready, no need to do it in Word, just as an e-mailmessage is fine.

In the blog, I'll also include my apology to you, andexplaining the situation and then everything should beok.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so> > quickly. When I> > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I> > would assume you were> > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the> > misunderstanding at root in> > these events.> > > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly> > viewed as a pariah again, for> > some reason I do not know. I am no longer acting in> > good faith, you> > assume. There is little I can do once that> > assumption is made, however I> > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.> > > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that> > the Davies quote was> > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and> > "anti-theists" alike would> > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you> > clipped. There is nothing> > "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is> > true..."> > > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the> > final three-sentence> > paragraph of his editorial?> > > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides> > both are wrong, and says> > something entirely antithetical in the third> > sentence. He forgets to delete> > the first two sentences on his word processor, a> > mistake which goes> > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New> > York Times.> > > > In the second scenario, he writes the three> > disparate sentences> > intentionally with a common goal in mind. The final> > paragraph as a whole is> > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is> > destroyed when just the> > final sentence is taken without the preceding two.> > > > Now, which scenario is more likely? Paul Davies is> > certainly no theist.> > What are the chances that he meant his final> > paragraph to be used in the way> > Bradford uses it? Effectively zero.> > > > Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I> > still can't fathom how),> > that is not exactly relevant here. I have outlined> > an entirely reasonable> > and rational position, and I expect all or most> > non-ID folks would agree> > with me. Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational> > discussion were people are> > free to disagree, or not?> > > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels. You> > have done several things> > which were outright wrong, and you have apologized> > for them (thank you).> > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy. My> > posts were not saved, and> > they were not added to the memory hole. Those posts> > outlined my position on> > the Davies quote, summarized above. By deleting> > those posts permanently,> > you denied me the chance to defend myself against> > Bradford's accusations.> > > > And now I am required to defend my position again. > > Actually you did not ask> > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my> > position! Moreover, my> > renouncement is being held as a precondition for> > *you* to admit the mistakes> > *you* made!> > > > I am astonished.> > > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:> > >> > > I feel that this is justified given your false> > charge>> > > of out of context quotation, which you have not> > yet>> > > apologized for.>> > >>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:>> > >>>> > > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all> > know>>> > > > how easily>>> > > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.>>> > > > Normally at this point I>>> > > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we> > would>>> > > > both have a laugh at>>> > > > the confluence of coincidences which brought> > about>>> > > > the misunderstanding.>>> > > >>>> > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement> > hasn't>>> > > > been made on TT>>> > > > explaining the situation. You continue to stand>>> > > > mute in the face of all the>>> > > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took>>> > > > place in the aftermath of>>> > > > our ban.>>> > > >>> > >> >

We clearly have trouble communicating. Please bear with me again. Again, Iam not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded. I pledge once more that I amacting in good faith.

I hope that my position on the Davies quote has been explained thoroughlyenough. I also hope that, even though you may disagree with it, you see itis as a position someone could take (albeit erroneously). I know thatothers agree with me.

It is my understanding that participants at Telic Thoughts are allowed todisagree. Surely I would have been banned long ago if this was not thecase, as would a slew of others.

You and Bradford disagree with my position on the Davies quote. That isfine. We could debate it more, and we may even get somewhere, but that isnot relevant right now. What *is* relevant is that we should be allowed todisagree.

Again you appear to be asking me to renounce my position. It appears that Iam not allowed to disagree because my disagreement offends Bradford. Surelyyou can't mean that, so what do you mean?

It would be one thing if I said, "Bradford, you <bleep> <bleep>, I herebyaccuse you of maliciously taking a quote out of context!" That certainlywould require an apology. But I did no such thing. Look at my post --- itmerely says "Davies was quoted out of context."

Every day scores of people (probably hundreds) are quoted out of context onInternet blogs. It is commonplace. Only a tiny fraction of bloggersactually do it on purpose, maliciously. I made no accusations of maliciousintent.

As I said in my last email, not only is it troubling that I am being askedto renounce my position, but that you must obtain my renouncement in orderto do the honorable thing of publicly acknowledging those mistakes that youhave heretofore only privately acknowledged.

I regret that I am mostly repeating myself here, but I am still fumblingaround trying to understand your position.

Kind Regards,Frostman

On Nov 28, 2007 5:07 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > This is just more misunderstanding, but in a debate,> > you should always offer your opponent the benefit of> > the doubt. He disagreed with you that including the> > preceding sentences you accused him of purposely> > leaving out changed the meaning of his post much, if> > at all.> >> > But anyway, the details here don't matter. Accusing> > him of taking the quote out of context was> > inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.> >> > Actually this was part of my stipulation all along, I> > just didn't mention it because you had not agreed yet> > to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize to> > Bradford before returning.> >> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> > > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so>> > > quickly. When I>> > > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I>> > > would assume you were>> > > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the>> > > misunderstanding at root in>> > > these events.>> > >>> > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly>> > > viewed as a pariah again, for>> > > some reason I do not know. I am no longer acting in>> > > good faith, you>> > > assume. There is little I can do once that>> > > assumption is made, however I>> > > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.>> > >>> > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that>> > > the Davies quote was>> > > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and>> > > "anti-theists" alike would>> > > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you>> > > clipped. There is nothing>> > > "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is>> > > true...">> > >>> > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the>> > > final three-sentence>> > > paragraph of his editorial?>> > >>> > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides>> > > both are wrong, and says>> > > something entirely antithetical in the third>> > > sentence. He forgets to delete>> > > the first two sentences on his word processor, a>> > > mistake which goes>> > > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New>> > > York Times.>> > >>> > > In the second scenario, he writes the three>> > > disparate sentences>> > > intentionally with a common goal in mind. The final>> > > paragraph as a whole is>> > > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is>> > > destroyed when just the>> > > final sentence is taken without the preceding two.>> > >>> > > Now, which scenario is more likely? Paul Davies is>> > > certainly no theist.>> > > What are the chances that he meant his final>> > > paragraph to be used in the way>> > > Bradford uses it? Effectively zero.>> > >>> > > Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I>> > > still can't fathom how),>> > > that is not exactly relevant here. I have outlined>> > > an entirely reasonable>> > > and rational position, and I expect all or most>> > > non-ID folks would agree>> > > with me. Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational>> > > discussion were people are>> > > free to disagree, or not?>> > >>> > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels. You>> > > have done several things>> > > which were outright wrong, and you have apologized>> > > for them (thank you).>> > > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy. My>> > > posts were not saved, and>> > > they were not added to the memory hole. Those posts>> > > outlined my position on>> > > the Davies quote, summarized above. By deleting>> > > those posts permanently,>> > > you denied me the chance to defend myself against>> > > Bradford's accusations.>> > >>> > > And now I am required to defend my position again.>> > > Actually you did not ask>> > > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my>> > > position! Moreover, my>> > > renouncement is being held as a precondition for>> > > *you* to admit the mistakes>> > > *you* made!>> > >>> > > I am astonished.>> > >>> > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:>> > >>>> > > > I feel that this is justified given your false>> > > charge>>> > > > of out of context quotation, which you have not>> > > yet>>> > > > apologized for.>>> > > >>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:>>> > > >>>>> > > > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all>> > > know>>>> > > > > how easily>>>> > > > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.>>>> > > > > Normally at this point I>>>> > > > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we>> > > would>>>> > > > > both have a laugh at>>>> > > > > the confluence of coincidences which brought>> > > about>>>> > > > > the misunderstanding.>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement>> > > hasn't>>>> > > > > been made on TT>>>> > > > > explaining the situation. You continue to stand>>>> > > > > mute in the face of all the>>>> > > > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took>>>> > > > > place in the aftermath of>>>> > > > > our ban.>>>> > > > >>>> > > >>> > >> >> >

You used words like "you clipped" and "setting thestage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the quoteout of context". You were clearly making it out to bea malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking quotesout of context can rarely be acheived by accident. Ifthat was in fact, not what you meant, surely you cansee how one can take offense nonetheless, and youshould apologize for such sloppy use of language (as Iapologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding whatto do about the broken memory hole).

For future reference, perhaps understanding thattelling someone that they have taken a quote out ofcontext is extremely offensive, and in fact, is notcommonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work toselectively choose sentences that would clearly alterthe meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do itwith various phrases from the Talmud.

Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation tosay he took it out of context, Bradford was nottalking about Davies's intended meaning, but thereaction from various atheists on the internet to theone sentence.

So again, I truly hope that you will apologize atleast for using sloppy language and then accusingBradford of unethically deleting your posts because hewas avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppylanguage). It would go a long way in putting thissituation behind us, and ultimately, serve as anexcellent example of how two opposing "camps" canrationally disagree but still engage with eachother ina civil manner.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > We clearly have trouble communicating. Please bear> > with me again. Again, I> > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded. I> > pledge once more that I am> > acting in good faith.> > > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has been> > explained thoroughly> > enough. I also hope that, even though you may> > disagree with it, you see it> > is as a position someone could take (albeit> > erroneously). I know that> > others agree with me.> > > > It is my understanding that participants at Telic> > Thoughts are allowed to> > disagree. Surely I would have been banned long ago> > if this was not the> > case, as would a slew of others.> > > > You and Bradford disagree with my position on the> > Davies quote. That is> > fine. We could debate it more, and we may even get> > somewhere, but that is> > not relevant right now. What *is* relevant is that> > we should be allowed to> > disagree.> > > > Again you appear to be asking me to renounce my> > position. It appears that I> > am not allowed to disagree because my disagreement> > offends Bradford. Surely> > you can't mean that, so what do you mean?> > > > It would be one thing if I said, "Bradford, you> > <bleep> <bleep>, I hereby> > accuse you of maliciously taking a quote out of> > context!" That certainly> > would require an apology. But I did no such thing. > > Look at my post --- it> > merely says "Davies was quoted out of context."> > > > Every day scores of people (probably hundreds) are> > quoted out of context on> > Internet blogs. It is commonplace. Only a tiny> > fraction of bloggers> > actually do it on purpose, maliciously. I made no> > accusations of malicious> > intent.> > > > As I said in my last email, not only is it troubling> > that I am being asked> > to renounce my position, but that you must obtain my> > renouncement in order> > to do the honorable thing of publicly acknowledging> > those mistakes that you> > have heretofore only privately acknowledged.> > > > I regret that I am mostly repeating myself here, but> > I am still fumbling> > around trying to understand your position.> > > > Kind Regards,> > Frostman> > > > On Nov 28, 2007 5:07 PM, Nelson Alonso> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:> > >> > > This is just more misunderstanding, but in a> > debate,>> > > you should always offer your opponent the benefit> > of>> > > the doubt. He disagreed with you that including> > the>> > > preceding sentences you accused him of purposely>> > > leaving out changed the meaning of his post much,> > if>> > > at all.>> > >>> > > But anyway, the details here don't matter.> > Accusing>> > > him of taking the quote out of context was>> > > inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.>> > >>> > > Actually this was part of my stipulation all> > along, I>> > > just didn't mention it because you had not agreed> > yet>> > > to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize> > to>> > > Bradford before returning.>> > >>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:>> > >>>> > > > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour> > again so>>> > > > quickly. When I>>> > > > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and> > that I>>> > > > would assume you were>>> > > > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the>>> > > > misunderstanding at root in>>> > > > these events.>>> > > >>>> > > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly>>> > > > viewed as a pariah again, for>>> > > > some reason I do not know. I am no longer> > acting in>>> > > > good faith, you>>> > > > assume. There is little I can do once that>>> > > > assumption is made, however I>>> > > > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.>>> > > >>>> > > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is> > that>>> > > > the Davies quote was>>> > > > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and>>> > > > "anti-theists" alike would>>> > > > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you>>> > > > clipped. There is nothing>>> > > > "most discordant" about them; indeed the> > contrary is>>> > > > true...">>> > > >>>> > > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the>>> > > > final three-sentence>>> > > > paragraph of his editorial?>>> > > >>>> > > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences,> > decides>>> > > > both are wrong, and says>>> > > > something entirely antithetical in the third>>> > > > sentence. He forgets to delete>>> > > > the first two sentences on his word processor, a>>> > > > mistake which goes>>> > > > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the> > New>>> > > > York Times.>>> > > >>>> > > > In the second scenario, he writes the three>>> > > > disparate sentences>>> > > > intentionally with a common goal in mind. The> > final>>> > > > paragraph as a whole is>>> > > > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning> > is>>> > > > destroyed when just the>>> > > > final sentence is taken without the preceding> > two.>>> > > >>>> > > > Now, which scenario is more likely? Paul Davies> > is>>> > > > certainly no theist.>>> > > > What are the chances that he meant his final>>> > > > paragraph to be used in the way>>> > > > Bradford uses it? Effectively zero.>>> > > >>>> > > > Though you personally disagree with me (and> > sorry I>>> > > > still can't fathom how),>>> > > > that is not exactly relevant here. I have> > outlined>>> > > > an entirely reasonable>>> > > > and rational position, and I expect all or most>>> > > > non-ID folks would agree>>> > > > with me. Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational>>> > > > discussion were people are>>> > > > free to disagree, or not?>>> > > >>>> > > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels. > > You>>> > > > have done several things>>> > > > which were outright wrong, and you have> > apologized>>> > > > for them (thank you).>>> > > > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy. My>>> > > > posts were not saved, and>>> > > > they were not added to the memory hole. Those> > posts>>> > > > outlined my position on>>> > > > the Davies quote, summarized above. By deleting>>> > > > those posts permanently,>>> > > > you denied me the chance to defend myself> > against>>> > > > Bradford's accusations.>>> > > >>>> > > > And now I am required to defend my position> > again.>>> > > > Actually you did not ask>>> > > > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my>>> > > > position! Moreover, my>>> > > > renouncement is being held as a precondition for>>> > > > *you* to admit the mistakes>>> > > > *you* made!>>> > > >>>> > > > I am astonished.>>> > > >>>> > > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:>>> > > >>>>> > > > > I feel that this is justified given your false> > === message truncated ===

I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies quote again. In short, Ibelieve it was a mistake to use only the final sentence of thatthree-sentence paragraph. The most important part of any quoting is to befaithful to the author's intention. As you said, Bradford was not talkingabout Davies' intended meaning. That is by definition an out of contextquote. And that is exactly the problem here. You have reinforced myposition on this.

Calling attention to an out of context quote is not inherently offensive orderogatory. It does happen often --- at least more often than you believeit does --- and the reason for it happening is well-known. It does notinvolve malicious intent.

All you have to do is put yourself in the position of the blogger. Imagineyou are reading an article, and a particular sentence or passage gives you ajolt of excitement. In your enthusiasm, it is possible that you may nottake the surrounding text sufficiently into account --- you just love thatpassage! You are focusing hard on that passage. And in your focusing, youmay forget about the other stuff. There is nothing conniving about it.It's just part of the package of human emotions, which is our greatestasset. Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead us into logical troubles.

This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally be taken out ofcontext, but you see the gist of it.

And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed once again!

This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a digression from the originalissue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn'tbeen made on TT explaining the situation." This is the number one issue.My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a separate issue, of which Ihave no concern at the moment.

When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you wrote a very contrite emailto me, for which you deserve much credit. I am grateful that we both stuckit out long enough to figure out what really happened. That in itself maybe somewhat rare. If either one of us had been a little less tolerant, oneparty may have stomped away, and the problem would be left unsolved.

The thing that bothers me is what happened next. It took genuine honor towrite that email, but there was no public display of that honor. I waitedfor an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear on the TT thread, butnone did. Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a false impression of myactions there. And they still do. With all the dignity you showed in youremail, you could not muster the strength to clear my name.

And then came the email which bowled me over: that you would disclose themisunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon certain conditions whichI must fulfill. I will do something, and in return you will admit yourmistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the unintentional consequence ofwrongfully defaming me. There is a name for that, and we both know what itis.

It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is to tell a lie. You wantme to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a position which I firmlybelieve. I have squarely and successfully defended this position.(Remember, my position is that the quote is simply out of context, not thatBradford willfully did it.) If I were to disavow that, I would be lying.

Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing? What is stopping you fromexplaining the situation to the folks at TT? Why is it contingent upon *my*actions? My renouncement or affirmation of the Davies quote is totallyunrelated. As if you need my permission to do the right thing.

We both know what is right and what is wrong in this situation. Why am Ieven put in a position of persuading you to do the right thing? Why don'tyou just do it?

Unfortunately on this point, I see no out for you.That the last sentence in question makes atheistsuncomfortable is an irrefutable fact. You can see thisin that none of the critics that have been confrontedwith this lone quote have taken your position (out ofcontext).

You also don't see how disingenuous it is to accusesomeone of such a thing, when the evidence can pointeither way, which means you are willing to do it againeven if I let you back in. I cannot allow that.

So in conclusion, I must say once again, farewellFrostman. It's a shame, you had potential.

Soon banning at TT will become a thing of the past,because I've programmed an alternative to the memoryhole. It's too bad you were not part of this new era.Still, I frequently visit anti-ID forums, so perhapsthis is not goodbye, just a farewell, for now.

Sincerely,Guts

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies> > quote again. In short, I> > believe it was a mistake to use only the final> > sentence of that> > three-sentence paragraph. The most important part> > of any quoting is to be> > faithful to the author's intention. As you said,> > Bradford was not talking> > about Davies' intended meaning. That is by> > definition an out of context> > quote. And that is exactly the problem here. You> > have reinforced my> > position on this.> > > > Calling attention to an out of context quote is not> > inherently offensive or> > derogatory. It does happen often --- at least more> > often than you believe> > it does --- and the reason for it happening is> > well-known. It does not> > involve malicious intent.> > > > All you have to do is put yourself in the position> > of the blogger. Imagine> > you are reading an article, and a particular> > sentence or passage gives you a> > jolt of excitement. In your enthusiasm, it is> > possible that you may not> > take the surrounding text sufficiently into account> > --- you just love that> > passage! You are focusing hard on that passage. > > And in your focusing, you> > may forget about the other stuff. There is nothing> > conniving about it.> > It's just part of the package of human emotions,> > which is our greatest> > asset. Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead> > us into logical troubles.> > > > This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally> > be taken out of> > context, but you see the gist of it.> > > > And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed> > once again!> > > > This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a> > digression from the original> > issue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is> > that a statement hasn't> > been made on TT explaining the situation." This is> > the number one issue.> > My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a> > separate issue, of which I> > have no concern at the moment.> > > > When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you> > wrote a very contrite email> > to me, for which you deserve much credit. I am> > grateful that we both stuck> > it out long enough to figure out what really> > happened. That in itself may> > be somewhat rare. If either one of us had been a> > little less tolerant, one> > party may have stomped away, and the problem would> > be left unsolved.> > > > The thing that bothers me is what happened next. It> > took genuine honor to> > write that email, but there was no public display of> > that honor. I waited> > for an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear> > on the TT thread, but> > none did. Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a> > false impression of my> > actions there. And they still do. With all the> > dignity you showed in your> > email, you could not muster the strength to clear my> > name.> > > > And then came the email which bowled me over: that> > you would disclose the> > misunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon> > certain conditions which> > I must fulfill. I will do something, and in return> > you will admit your> > mistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the> > unintentional consequence of> > wrongfully defaming me. There is a name for that,> > and we both know what it> > is.> > > > It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is> > to tell a lie. You want> > me to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a> > position which I firmly> > believe. I have squarely and successfully defended> > this position.> > (Remember, my position is that the quote is simply> > out of context, not that> > Bradford willfully did it.) If I were to disavow> > that, I would be lying.> > > > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing? > > What is stopping you from> > explaining the situation to the folks at TT? Why is> > it contingent upon *my*> > actions? My renouncement or affirmation of the> > Davies quote is totally> > unrelated. As if you need my permission to do the> > right thing.> > > > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this> > situation. Why am I> > even put in a position of persuading you to do the> > right thing? Why don't> > you just do it?> > > > Regards,> > Frostman> > > > On Nov 28, 2007 7:37 PM, Nelson Alonso> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:> > >> > > You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the>> > > stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the> > quote>> > > out of context". You were clearly making it out to> > be>> > > a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking> > quotes>> > > out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.> > If>> > > that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you> > can>> > > see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you>> > > should apologize for such sloppy use of language> > (as I>> > > apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding> > what>> > > to do about the broken memory hole).>> > >>> > > For future reference, perhaps understanding that>> > > telling someone that they have taken a quote out> > of>> > > context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is> > not>> > > commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to>> > > selectively choose sentences that would clearly> > alter>> > > the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do> > it>> > > with various phrases from the Talmud.>> > >>> > > Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation> > to>> > > say he took it out of context, Bradford was not>> > > talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the>> > > reaction from various atheists on the internet to> > the>> > > one sentence.>> > >>> > > So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at>> > > least for using sloppy language and then accusing>> > > Bradford of unethically deleting your posts> > because he>> > > was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy>> > > language). It would go a long way in putting this>> > > situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an>> > > excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can>> > > rationally disagree but still engage with> > eachother in>> > > a civil manner.>> > >>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:>> > >>>> > > > We clearly have trouble communicating. Please> > bear>>> > > > with me again. Again, I>>> > > > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded. > > I>>> > > > pledge once more that I am>>> > > > acting in good faith.>>> > > >>>> > > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has> > been>>> > > > explained thoroughly>>> > > > enough. I also hope that, even though you may>>> > > > disagree with it, you see it>>> > > > is as a position someone could take (albeit>>> > > > erroneously). I know that>>> > > > others agree with me.>>> > > >>>> > > > It is my understanding that participants at> > Telic>>> > > > Thoughts are allowed to>>> > > > disagree. Surely I would have been banned long> > ago>>> > > > if this was not the>>> > > > case, as would a slew of others.>>> > > >> > === message truncated ===

Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

You have misunderstood. In my last email I made clear, or I thought I madeclear, that I am unconcerned about the state of my banning. That's not theissue here.

The issue is that you have not done the right thing by publicly explainingthe mistakes you made to those at TT, and the unfortunate consequences ofthose mistakes. Like I said in my last email, "This is the number oneissue. My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a separate issue, ofwhich I have no concern at the moment."

Previously you said to me, among other things, "...I deleted the restbecause I perceived the situation as a hostile reaction to Bradford'sinitial decision, for which I apologize to you. This goes for the rest ofthe deletions as well, all the rest of the deletions were my doing becauseof what I perceived as a hostile attack on Bradford, an attempt tocircumvent his decision. Really you just felt that your posts were unjustlydeleted out of existence, I would get mad at that as well."

Why would you continue to hold that information to yourself? When yourealized the misunderstanding, why didn't you rush to correct it? Why haveyou still not corrected it? You may not like me, but obviously that is noexcuse. We both know what is right and what is wrong here. Why have younot done the right thing?

Sincerely,Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 3:16 AM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Hello again Frostman,> >> > Unfortunately on this point, I see no out for you.> > That the last sentence in question makes atheists> > uncomfortable is an irrefutable fact. You can see this> > in that none of the critics that have been confronted> > with this lone quote have taken your position (out of> > context).> >> > You also don't see how disingenuous it is to accuse> > someone of such a thing, when the evidence can point> > either way, which means you are willing to do it again> > even if I let you back in. I cannot allow that.> >> > So in conclusion, I must say once again, farewell> > Frostman. It's a shame, you had potential.> >> > Soon banning at TT will become a thing of the past,> > because I've programmed an alternative to the memory> > hole. It's too bad you were not part of this new era.> > Still, I frequently visit anti-ID forums, so perhaps> > this is not goodbye, just a farewell, for now.> >> > Sincerely,> > Guts> >> >> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> > > I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies>> > > quote again. In short, I>> > > believe it was a mistake to use only the final>> > > sentence of that>> > > three-sentence paragraph. The most important part>> > > of any quoting is to be>> > > faithful to the author's intention. As you said,>> > > Bradford was not talking>> > > about Davies' intended meaning. That is by>> > > definition an out of context>> > > quote. And that is exactly the problem here. You>> > > have reinforced my>> > > position on this.>> > >>> > > Calling attention to an out of context quote is not>> > > inherently offensive or>> > > derogatory. It does happen often --- at least more>> > > often than you believe>> > > it does --- and the reason for it happening is>> > > well-known. It does not>> > > involve malicious intent.>> > >>> > > All you have to do is put yourself in the position>> > > of the blogger. Imagine>> > > you are reading an article, and a particular>> > > sentence or passage gives you a>> > > jolt of excitement. In your enthusiasm, it is>> > > possible that you may not>> > > take the surrounding text sufficiently into account>> > > --- you just love that>> > > passage! You are focusing hard on that passage.>> > > And in your focusing, you>> > > may forget about the other stuff. There is nothing>> > > conniving about it.>> > > It's just part of the package of human emotions,>> > > which is our greatest>> > > asset. Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead>> > > us into logical troubles.>> > >>> > > This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally>> > > be taken out of>> > > context, but you see the gist of it.>> > >>> > > And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed>> > > once again!>> > >>> > > This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a>> > > digression from the original>> > > issue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is>> > > that a statement hasn't>> > > been made on TT explaining the situation." This is>> > > the number one issue.>> > > My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a>> > > separate issue, of which I>> > > have no concern at the moment.>> > >>> > > When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you>> > > wrote a very contrite email>> > > to me, for which you deserve much credit. I am>> > > grateful that we both stuck>> > > it out long enough to figure out what really>> > > happened. That in itself may>> > > be somewhat rare. If either one of us had been a>> > > little less tolerant, one>> > > party may have stomped away, and the problem would>> > > be left unsolved.>> > >>> > > The thing that bothers me is what happened next. It>> > > took genuine honor to>> > > write that email, but there was no public display of>> > > that honor. I waited>> > > for an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear>> > > on the TT thread, but>> > > none did. Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a>> > > false impression of my>> > > actions there. And they still do. With all the>> > > dignity you showed in your>> > > email, you could not muster the strength to clear my>> > > name.>> > >>> > > And then came the email which bowled me over: that>> > > you would disclose the>> > > misunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon>> > > certain conditions which>> > > I must fulfill. I will do something, and in return>> > > you will admit your>> > > mistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the>> > > unintentional consequence of>> > > wrongfully defaming me. There is a name for that,>> > > and we both know what it>> > > is.>> > >>> > > It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is>> > > to tell a lie. You want>> > > me to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a>> > > position which I firmly>> > > believe. I have squarely and successfully defended>> > > this position.>> > > (Remember, my position is that the quote is simply>> > > out of context, not that>> > > Bradford willfully did it.) If I were to disavow>> > > that, I would be lying.>> > >>> > > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?>> > > What is stopping you from>> > > explaining the situation to the folks at TT? Why is>> > > it contingent upon *my*>> > > actions? My renouncement or affirmation of the>> > > Davies quote is totally>> > > unrelated. As if you need my permission to do the>> > > right thing.>> > >>> > > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this>> > > situation. Why am I>> > > even put in a position of persuading you to do the>> > > right thing? Why don't>> > > you just do it?>> > >>> > > Regards,>> > > Frostman>> > >>> > > On Nov 28, 2007 7:37 PM, Nelson Alonso>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:>> > >>>> > > > You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the>>> > > > stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the>> > > quote>>> > > > out of context". You were clearly making it out to>> > > be>>> > > > a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking>> > > quotes>>> > > > out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.>> > > If>>> > > > that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you>> > > can>>> > > > see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you>>> > > > should apologize for such sloppy use of language>> > > (as I>>> > > > apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding>> > > what>>> > > > to do about the broken memory hole).>>> > > >>>> > > > For future reference, perhaps understanding that>>> > > > telling someone that they have taken a quote out>> > > of>>> > > > context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is>> > > not>>> > > > commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to>>> > > > selectively choose sentences that would clearly>> > > alter>>> > > > the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do>> > > it>>> > > > with various phrases from the Talmud.>>> > > >>>> > > > Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation>> > > to>>> > > > say he took it out of context, Bradford was not>>> > > > talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the>>> > > > reaction from various atheists on the internet to>> > > the>>> > > > one sentence.>>> > > >>>> > > > So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at>>> > > > least for using sloppy language and then accusing>>> > > > Bradford of unethically deleting your posts>> > > because he>>> > > > was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy>>> > > > language). It would go a long way in putting this>>> > > > situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an>>> > > > excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can>>> > > > rationally disagree but still engage with>> > > eachother in>>> > > > a civil manner.>>> > > >>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:>>> > > >>>>> > > > > We clearly have trouble communicating. Please>> > > bear>>>> > > > > with me again. Again, I>>>> > > > > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.>> > > I>>>> > > > > pledge once more that I am>>>> > > > > acting in good faith.>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has>> > > been>>>> > > > > explained thoroughly>>>> > > > > enough. I also hope that, even though you may>>>> > > > > disagree with it, you see it>>>> > > > > is as a position someone could take (albeit>>>> > > > > erroneously). I know that>>>> > > > > others agree with me.>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > It is my understanding that participants at>> > > Telic>>>> > > > > Thoughts are allowed to>>>> > > > > disagree. Surely I would have been banned long>> > > ago>>>> > > > > if this was not the>>>> > > > > case, as would a slew of others.>>>> > > > >>> > >> >> >

Though you have not answered yet (been very little time), I feel obligatedto address what I suspect your response will be.

You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first, and then I will do theright thing and disclose my mistakes which caused this misunderstanding atTT." Let me emphasize that there is nothing whatsoever preventing you fromdoing the latter. That is your task, and your task alone: to candidly saypublicly what you have candidly said to me privately.

I regret to simply restate what I said in my penultimate (I love that word!)email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored it:

Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing? What is stopping you fromexplaining the situation to the folks at TT? Why is it contingent upon *my*actions? My renouncement or affirmation of the Davies quote is totallyunrelated. As if you need my permission to do the right thing.

We both know what is right and what is wrong in this situation. Why am Ieven put in a position of persuading you to do the right thing? Why don'tyou just do it?

This is my last e-mail to you on this issue. First,unlike you, I have noted my error in judgementpublically, check out your thread on AE (ironically,although there were many insults flung at TT, theymoved the comments to threw it right back, but I betyou won't protest that).

Second, in that thread , I have *already* explainedwhat happened with numerous posts indicating what hadoccured. However, the fact remains that youraccusation of out of context quotation wasinappropriate, so , you deserve what happened. Thatsit.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Though you have not answered yet (been very little> > time), I feel obligated> > to address what I suspect your response will be.> > > > You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first,> > and then I will do the> > right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused> > this misunderstanding at> > TT." Let me emphasize that there is nothing> > whatsoever preventing you from> > doing the latter. That is your task, and your task> > alone: to candidly say> > publicly what you have candidly said to me> > privately.> > > > I regret to simply restate what I said in my> > penultimate (I love that word!)> > email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored> > it:> > > > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing? > > What is stopping you from> > explaining the situation to the folks at TT? Why is> > it contingent upon *my*> > actions? My renouncement or affirmation of the> > Davies quote is totally> > unrelated. As if you need my permission to do the> > right thing.> > > > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this> > situation. Why am I> > even put in a position of persuading you to do the> > right thing? Why don't> > you just do it?> > > > Sincerely,> > Frostman> >

The offer still stands as to lifting your ban. You cansend me an apology to Bradford, which I will post as aBlog Entry, along with my apology to you. I think twoparagraphs is enough.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Though you have not answered yet (been very little> > time), I feel obligated> > to address what I suspect your response will be.> > > > You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first,> > and then I will do the> > right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused> > this misunderstanding at> > TT." Let me emphasize that there is nothing> > whatsoever preventing you from> > doing the latter. That is your task, and your task> > alone: to candidly say> > publicly what you have candidly said to me> > privately.> > > > I regret to simply restate what I said in my> > penultimate (I love that word!)> > email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored> > it:> > > > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing? > > What is stopping you from> > explaining the situation to the folks at TT? Why is> > it contingent upon *my*> > actions? My renouncement or affirmation of the> > Davies quote is totally> > unrelated. As if you need my permission to do the> > right thing.> > > > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this> > situation. Why am I> > even put in a position of persuading you to do the> > right thing? Why don't> > you just do it?> > > > Sincerely,> > Frostman> >

This is an ethical question for you to ponder on your own time. You havewronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not set the record straightin the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred. You know what is right,and you know that you have not done what is right. It's really that simple.

You have already agreed with me that the Davies quote was taken out ofcontext. You have already said, "Bradford was not talking about Davies'intended meaning." The most important part of any quoting is to be faithfulto the author's intended meaning. It's really that simple.

Regards,Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue. First,> > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement> > publically, check out your thread on AE (ironically,> > although there were many insults flung at TT, they> > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I bet> > you won't protest that).> >> > Second, in that thread , I have *already* explained> > what happened with numerous posts indicating what had> > occured. However, the fact remains that your> > accusation of out of context quotation was> > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened. Thats> > it.> >> >> >

Now you're just being stupid. What difference does itmake where I do it.

I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out ofcontext, I said your position that it was taken out ofcontext was irrational.

I've wasted enough time with you.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on> > your own time. You have> > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not> > set the record straight> > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred. > > You know what is right,> > and you know that you have not done what is right. > > It's really that simple.> > > > You have already agreed with me that the Davies> > quote was taken out of> > context. You have already said, "Bradford was not> > talking about Davies'> > intended meaning." The most important part of any> > quoting is to be faithful> > to the author's intended meaning. It's really that> > simple.> > > > Regards,> > Frostman> > > > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:> > >> > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue.> > First,>> > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement>> > > publically, check out your thread on AE> > (ironically,>> > > although there were many insults flung at TT, they>> > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I> > bet>> > > you won't protest that).>> > >>> > > Second, in that thread , I have *already*> > explained>> > > what happened with numerous posts indicating what> > had>> > > occured. However, the fact remains that your>> > > accusation of out of context quotation was>> > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened.> > Thats>> > > it.>> > >>> > >>> > >> >

TT readers have not been informed of what truly occurred. Some TT readersmay also read AE, but many do not. The honest course of action is to tellthem.

Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligationin front of you. You require nothing from me in order to fulfill thatobligation.

You know what the right thing to do is. Yet you will not do it.

Sincerely,Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 6:36 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > TT readers were already informed by my multiple posts> > in the thread in question. Any moderate lurkers> > reading the AE forum now have a clear indication of> > what truly occured. All is well.> >> >

I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions surrounding mybanishment from TT.

Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting mycomments permanently, against TT policy. These comments were not saved forlater additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested. Guts hasapologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (ratherprofusely) to me in email. Guts has not apologized to the TT community,however.

A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:

My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has toldme.

At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a particularquote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of context. Thisview is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for my banning.

Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit of afree exchange of ideas. You should be fully aware that TT does not supportsuch a free exchange.

Your failure to address or acknowledge unethical behavior at Telic Thoughtscan only be damaging to the blog's reputation.

With the new year upon us, will make a new commitment to allow a free andopen exchange of rational ideas at Telic Thoughts? As I have outlinedpreviously, such a free exchange currently absent at TT.

Perhaps you believe nothing unethical actually happened, in which case I amprepared to hand over this temporary email account to you, so that you mayread in full detail Guts' threats and subsequent apology to me. This willprovide ample evidence for all statements I have made on this matter.

That this situation has not been mentioned anywhere at TT is quitesignificant.

> > Hi Mike,> >> > I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions surrounding> > my banishment from TT.> >> > Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my> > comments permanently, against TT policy. These comments were not saved for> > later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested. Guts has> > apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather> > profusely) to me in email. Guts has not apologized to the TT community,> > however.> >> > A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:> >> > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90> >> >> > My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has told> > me.> >> > At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a> > particular quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of> > context. This view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for> > my banning.> >> > Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit of> > a free exchange of ideas. You should be fully aware that TT does not> > support such a free exchange.> >> > Kind Regards,> > Frostman> >> >

> > Hello Mike,> >> > Your failure to address or acknowledge unethical behavior at Telic> > Thoughts can only be damaging to the blog's reputation.> >> > With the new year upon us, will make a new commitment to allow a free and> > open exchange of rational ideas at Telic Thoughts? As I have outlined> > previously, such a free exchange currently absent at TT.> >> > Perhaps you believe nothing unethical actually happened, in which case I> > am prepared to hand over this temporary email account to you, so that you> > may read in full detail Guts' threats and subsequent apology to me. This> > will provide ample evidence for all statements I have made on this matter.> >> > That this situation has not been mentioned anywhere at TT is quite> > significant.> >> > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=120> >> >> > Kind Regards,> > Frostman> >> >> > On Dec 17, 2007 6:52 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> > > Hi Mike,>> > >>> > > I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions>> > > surrounding my banishment from TT.>> > >>> > > Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my>> > > comments permanently, against TT policy. These comments were not saved for>> > > later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested. Guts has>> > > apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather>> > > profusely) to me in email. Guts has not apologized to the TT community,>> > > however.>> > >>> > > A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:>> > >>> > >>> > > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90>> > >>> > >>> > > My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has>> > > told me.>> > >>> > > At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a>> > > particular quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of>> > > context. This view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for>> > > my banning.>> > >>> > > Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit>> > > of a free exchange of ideas. You should be fully aware that TT does not>> > > support such a free exchange.>> > >>> > > Kind Regards,>> > > Frostman>> > >>> > >> >

Joy is a veritable fountain of what I call 'blowtard'. Designed to impress the rubes as deep erudition, it elicits hysterical laughter from people who actually understand the subjects that Joy pretends to discuss.

The thing I noticed about Joy is her tendency to proclaim victory. In her imaginary world, materialism is over, ID was a success, etc. Really twisted, the way she lies to herself.

Very interesting. Guts blogged on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official Tiktaalik website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:

(Neil Shubin is in front.)

--------------Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.Member AMF, Angelic Motive ForcePushing planets on celestial spheres â€” one epoch at a time.

What's up with Allen MacNeill? Or is this old news? From the "apology thread" at TT

Quote

# Allen_MacNeill Says:May 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am

If I may chime in, I learned long ago (from my mentor, Will Provine) that one has two responsibilities when considering the kinds of questions posed here: never to attack the person making assertions with which one disagrees, and always to attack their assertions, with all the evidence and vigor at one's disposal. This, to me, is the primary ethic of the academy: we cherish those with whom we disagree, for in our disagreement we both come to clarity about our own attitudes, beliefs, positions, and understanding.

This is precisely why Will and I always invite people with whom we disagree to make presentations and stand for questions in our evolution courses at Cornell. In many cases our students become even more confirmed in their opposition to the ideas presented by such presenters, as a result of formulating their own telling questions and following up on the answers. And, of course, sometimes the presenters surprise us all, and our own positions must be modified as a result.

Hence, my deep regard for the folks here (and my general disdain for the average commentators at both Uncommon Descent and Panda's Thumb). May a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend, eh?

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

I disagree with MacNeill that one should hand moderation control of a course forum over to an unaffiliated student not taking the course. I noticed that MacNeill wasn't terribly "cherishing" of the commenter on PT that pointed that out.

Very interesting. Guts blogged on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official Tiktaalik website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:

(Neil Shubin is in front.)

That's a damn shame, Zach. You're the best commenter there.

BTW, I can't even speculate on what MacNeill's problem is. In the beginning, I thought TT was better than it is, because they're better at covering up their misbehavior, but the posts there are junk compared to PT.

Very interesting. Guts blogged on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official Tiktaalik website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:

(Neil Shubin is in front.)

That's a damn shame, Zach. You're the best commenter there.

BTW, I can't even speculate on what MacNeill's problem is. In the beginning, I thought TT was better than it is, because they're better at covering up their misbehavior, but the posts there are junk compared to PT.

Very interesting. Guts blogged on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official Tiktaalik website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:

(Neil Shubin is in front.)

Why am I not surprised? (That's my last comment on TT - the crew there are so on edge that they cannot stand any probing questions.)

I've never read much at TT in the past, but after reading this comment by Joy (is she FtK's sister? DT's mom?), I think I'll stop now. A commenter named Mesk wrote

Quote

During genome reconstruction you hit all sorts of crazy artefacts, mainly due to rearrangements caused by the bacteria used to grow up the chunks of chromosome for sequencing. There's no way researchers could tell the difference between a true CNV and a random artefact - so given that everything we knew about chromosomes and human health suggested that CNVs were rare, and the genome reconstruction algorithms were designed to filter out artefacts that looked exactly like CNVs, it's no wonder these things were missed.

Joy replied

Quote

Are you saying that the bacteria have human genes? What kind of bacteria is this, anyway? Regardless, it's nice that they've finally taken a step out of the stone age technologically. There are several human projects - medicine primary among them - that would greatly benefit from real knowledge. As opposed to slash-and-burn kill-em-all. I predicted that too.

Classic! Complete ignorance of molecular biology methods, coupled with the hubris to brag about some biological science prediction from your past.

Zach, it might be a good thing that you have been barred from some of those threads. That's fairly stunning stuff.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

Joy is unique among the TT denizens. She combines ignorance with arrogance that results in comments like this one:

Quote

Just an aside to let the groupies (as opposed to practicing scientists) know that in addition to the fact that no model of organic evolution that ignores physical theoretics can ever explain 'reality' as we perceive and experience it, I'd just like to add the scientific FACT that…

…if there are more than 3+1 dimensions in reality, we can't rule out the existence of intelligent life in any or all of them, or circumscribe the capabilities of such conscious existence according to the provisional [ignoring anomalies] 'rules' here in 3+1. Really.

Keep in mind that she is (or was at the time) herself a groupie of one Matti Pitkänen, a crackpot mathematical physicist.

No. Probabilities don’t change just because an outcome fell one way or another in the past. If a given flip of a fair coin turned up heads it doesn’t change the fact that the odds were 50/50 and will forever remain 50/50 for that fair coin.

So, Dave what are the odds of tossing 5 heads in a row, given that you've already tossed 5 heads?

Very interesting. Guts blogged on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official Tiktaalik website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:

(Neil Shubin is in front.)

That's a damn shame, Zach. You're the best commenter there.

BTW, I can't even speculate on what MacNeill's problem is. In the beginning, I thought TT was better than it is, because they're better at covering up their misbehavior, but the posts there are junk compared to PT.

Incidentally, anon9 is me. I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things. I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it. I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site. I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog. Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.

This is quite false. In fact anon9/frostman posted this on TT:

Quote

Many have been banned for this kind of confrontational style. One banned participant named Frostman documented his experience at Telic Thoughts

A clear attempt at disguising himself.

Quote

In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman.

In fact, I received no such "coded message". I did receive an e-mail from Frostman posing as JackT, who was using proxies to try to prove that he was not anon9/frostman, but still begged me to lift the ban.

This willingness to be deceptive speaks volumes. It shows the one who lacks ethics is frostman, not me.